Why did you get the M240?

I upgraded my M9 to M240 because :
It was quiter to use
It was faster to use
Rangefinder is more reliable
Better white balance
Better Dynamic range
Better ISO performance

what i dont like :
heavier (but not that much noticeable )
fatter
when you nail a shot with the CCD theres nothing quite like it
 
Last edited:
jubbaa said:
I upgraded my M9 to M240 because :
...
what i dont like :
heavier (but not that much noticeable )
fatter
when you nail a shot with the CCD theres nothing quite like it
Click to expand...
Fatter? I don't have my M9 anymore to compare, but let's use an M8... The part that sticks up the most on the M8 is the rear scroll wheel. On the M240 it's the thumb-rest with wheel. Comparing the thicknesses at that point and to the front body surface, the M8 is thicker!

Similarly, comparing from the surface of the LCD screen to the front body surface... the M8 is thicker! By about the thickness of a Giotto's protective glass, say about a mm or less.

Now, at the baseplate, I'm a bit surprised to find the M240 a fraction of a mm thicker there, as I'd expected them to be the same.

But, over all, perhaps we can now put that "M240 is thicker" idea to rest... at least compared to an M8. :)

Doug
 
I've had my 240 for a couple of months now and have had enough time to evaluate the camera and how it suits me ... so far all plusses and no minuses.

Currently I'm using it as my sole camera and it does everything from casual shooting to product shots for the guys I work for with a set of hot lights. I hated the ISO limitations of the M8 when I had it but no such problem with the 240 ... to my eyes it appears to be about a stop and half behind my D700 which makes it very usable at 3200 ISO for colour and will go a stop higher when black and white is intended.

Live view is extremely useful as is focus peaking and I use the EVF a lot with an adapter and my range of OM Zuikos in preference to my M lenses currently. Versatility is this camera's strong suit IMO along with it's excellent build quality. It was a lot of money but I have no regrets. :)
 
I find my view of M9 vs M240 pretty much the same as Jubbaa's, including how the M240 feels fatter and how when you get a good M9 shot it's a wonderful thing.
I still have my M9s but they've been sitting idle since getting an M240. I miss not using them, but the M240 is just so much better to use, mechanically speaking. The noise of the M9s is probably the thing that annoys me most. So indiscreet! If only you could tape up noise.
 
I was hesitant to switch from my M9, but knew that I'd made the right decision once firing off a few shots with the 240.
Having shot an M6 for years, the M9 never resonated with me. The user experience felt so unrefined and I was at a point where I was seriously considering going back to the M6 and keeping the RX100 on hand for digital.
I bought an M-P last week and as everyone said above, it's just awesome! Shoots faster, quieter, screen is usable, high ISO is amazing.......
The 240 seems much more like a precision instrument and lacks many of the limitations of the M9.
I'm not sure that I'm over the massive value depreciation that the digital Leica goes through, but I do love the new camera.
 
Doug said:
Fatter? I don't have my M9 anymore to compare, but let's use an M8... The part that sticks up the most on the M8 is the rear scroll wheel. On the M240 it's the thumb-rest with wheel. Comparing the thicknesses at that point and to the front body surface, the M8 is thicker!

Similarly, comparing from the surface of the LCD screen to the front body surface... the M8 is thicker! By about the thickness of a Giotto's protective glass, say about a mm or less.

Now, at the baseplate, I'm a bit surprised to find the M240 a fraction of a mm thicker there, as I'd expected them to be the same.

But, over all, perhaps we can now put that "M240 is thicker" idea to rest... at least compared to an M8. :)

Doug
Click to expand...
Actually all three are exactly the same. this whole fatter business is caused by the fact that the thumb wheel was included in the official size specification. People that “can feel the difference” suffer from a bad case of placebo effect.
 
I don't agree about it being placebo effect. In a blindfold test I feel confident anyone would say the M240 feels different from an M9. Maybe not fatter, but definitely different. On earlier M's I always pressed my thumb against the smooth area where the thumb wheel is now located. That gave me the most secure grip. It's uncomfortable to press my thumb against the wheel/bump. Pressing it left or right of the bump gives me a less-secure grip. That coupled with the added weight. A 1mm pebble is insignificant until it's inside your shoe ;) It only took me maybe a week to get used to the M240's ergonomics, but it wasn't instantaneous.
 
Honestly the main reason to keep only M after using both M9 an M side-by-side for a while is the ability to have more exact composition on tripod work due to EVF. Actually I did not guess this before purchasing.

The rest is nice-to-have; slightly better DR, weather sealing, quieter, etc.

jaapv said:
Actually all three are exactly the same. this whole fatter business is caused by the fact that the thumb wheel was included in the official size specification. People that “can feel the difference” suffer from a bad case of placebo effect.
Click to expand...
The M an M9 feels very different in hand. Not thicker but different. And of course they must since they are different shaped and of different weight. My apologies to those without thumb and forefinger that might have problems with feeling the difference in shape, no disrespect meant.
 
I got the M because it is a fairly compact full frame system with great lenses that are still fairly compact and also have real mechanical manual focus. It's sadly the only option on the market, which gives Leica the opportunity to raise the cost of the system to an obscene amount.

This cost has also sadly attracted many collectors and fashionistas to the system, which I find gives Leica as a camera system "negative press". Basically the camera and lenses has become a fashion accessory for a group of the owners, and those owners also make photographs where the photographs are more about photographing and displaying the "Leica look" than actually producing a good image with interesting content.

The last part is what's turning me more and more away from the Leica brand... But the sad realization is that there is no real alternative to the M-system yet. So to survive the fashion brand stamp I just use black tape and remove all brandings from the camera itself, so nobody actually knows what I'm using :D I will never be a "Leica photographer" and I'm extremely happy about that. But I will use the system until something better shows up.
 
borge said:
I got the M because it is a fairly compact full frame system with great lenses that are still fairly compact and also have real mechanical manual focus. It's sadly the only option on the market, which gives Leica the opportunity to raise the cost of the system to an obscene amount.

This cost has also sadly attracted many collectors and fashionistas to the system, which I find gives Leica as a camera system "negative press". Basically the camera and lenses has become a fashion accessory for a group of the owners, and those owners also make photographs where the photographs are more about photographing and displaying the "Leica look" than actually producing a good image with interesting content.

The last part is what's turning me more and more away from the Leica brand... But the sad realization is that there is no real alternative to the M-system yet. So to survive the fashion brand stamp I just use black tape and remove all brandings from the camera itself, so nobody actually knows what I'm using :D I will never be a "Leica photographer" and I'm extremely happy about that. But I will use the system until something better shows up.
Click to expand...

I agree with the above. In the past using a Leica was a sign of being "serious" in the eyes of the layman. Now it's a sign of being a rich ponce.
 
borge said:
This cost has also sadly attracted many collectors and fashionistas to the system, which I find gives Leica as a camera system "negative press". Basically the camera and lenses has become a fashion accessory for a group of the owners, and those owners also make photographs where the photographs are more about photographing and displaying the "Leica look" than actually producing a good image with interesting content.
Click to expand...
Could you please provide figures and research for this rather disparaging statement?
 
flyalf said:
Honestly the main reason to keep only M after using both M9 an M side-by-side for a while is the ability to have more exact composition on tripod work due to EVF. Actually I did not guess this before purchasing.

The rest is nice-to-have; slightly better DR, weather sealing, quieter, etc.


The M an M9 feels very different in hand. Not thicker but different. And of course they must since they are different shaped and of different weight. My apologies to those without thumb and forefinger that might have problems with feeling the difference in shape, no disrespect meant.
Click to expand...

Do you actually have both side by side? I have the whole series here in front of me, and the only difference is the presence of the thumbrest. Which many have simulated by the Thumbie or Thumbs Up, without complaining that camera felt fatter.
The couple of ounces weight difference is neither here nor there - the differences in lens weight are far more. Even using a silver Summilux 50 instead of a black one give a greater weight differential.
 
Initially I planned to keep the M9 for a couple of years and get the M240-P or maybe the next model, but the delaminating sensor of the M9 somewhat forced me to make the upgrade earlier. I must say I don't regret the move, the M240 is so much better.
 
jaapv said:
So you DO own a Leica camera?
Click to expand...

I do, I have an M9 and I very much enjoy it.

But we're talking about perceptions and impressions here, not data.

And the perception I'm picking up off the internet and mingling with other photographers is that by-and-large, Leicas are cameras for wealthy, fashion-conscious amateurs, not serious photographers.
 
sleepyhead said:
I do, I have an M9 and I very much enjoy it.

But we're talking about perceptions and impressions here, not data.

And the perception I'm picking up off the internet and mingling with other photographers is that by-and-large, Leicas are cameras for wealthy, fashion-conscious amateurs, not serious photographers.
Click to expand...

I think you're describing the current state of photography in general. Most are wannabe photographers. Those who can afford it buy Leicas, those who do not buy other brands. If you are able to sieve out the rich collectors and poseurs, Leica photographers are actually producing some of the most iconic images that will be remembered in the centuries to come.
 
sleepyhead said:
I do, I have an M9 and I very much enjoy it.

But we're talking about perceptions and impressions here, not data.

And the perception I'm picking up off the internet and mingling with other photographers is that by-and-large, Leicas are cameras for wealthy, fashion-conscious amateurs, not serious photographers.
Click to expand...

I don't care whether the internet perception of me is that I'm a "wealthy, fashion-conscious amateur" and "not a serious photographer." Who gives a flying f**t what the internet thinks anyway? :)

I like my Leicas: they're good, solid cameras. Expensive for sure, but eh? As long as I'm not starving my kids or embezzling the boss in order to buy what I like, who cares?

G
 
sleepyhead said:
...And the perception I'm picking up off the internet and mingling with other photographers is that by-and-large, Leicas are cameras for wealthy, fashion-conscious amateurs, not serious photographers.
Click to expand...

I am NOT a fashionista! Just don't stare at my tailored suit. So there-

funny-animals-sticking-tongues-14.jpg
 
With no disrespect to Thorsten, statements like "wear your Leica" really contribute to this perception ;) But hey, he's very successful at what he does and that's how he makes his money, so good on him! :)
 
jaapv said:
Could you please provide figures and research for this rather disparaging statement?
Click to expand...

Uhm... No. It's just my observation and perception by people in general in the photography community. I don't share the same view myself, but, I find it sad that some "Leica photographers" nowadays wear their cameras as a fashion statement more than for making content that matters. I hope it's the minority. But at the same time over the last years it almost seems like a stereotype is developing. Any object that is very expensive and exclusive attracts a certain type of people that wants to be a part of that exclusive group.

There are also some people out there who act as the public PR agency for Leica. I've been to several workshops where it sometimes seems like it's a personal goal of the people having the workshop is to sell Leica. I would never ever listen to car salesmen... I hope you understand my comparison.

Why anyone would want to be known as a <insert brand> photographer beats me. Brand associations aren't usually a good thing. Brands and companies exist to makey money first and foremost. So the term "Leica photographer" in my view is not something that I would view as a privilege, but I'd rather think that the photographer sold out to a company rather than staying neutral. And by doing that the photographer will be able to achieve less than if the photographer rather made their own brand, and considered their tools for what they actually are - tools. And there are many different tools to choose from. And today they are all very very good, and have different strengths and weaknesses.

Anyway, maybe I'm just paying too much attention to the wrong people and letting it get to me :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom